Flag management in processors enabled for speculative execution of micro-operation traces

ABSTRACT

Managing speculative execution via groups of actions corresponding to atomic traces enables efficient processing of flag-related actions, as atomic traces advantageously enable single checkpoints of flags at trace boundaries. Flag restoration from checkpoints for trace aborts uses a flag checkpoint table to store flag checkpoints, each corresponding to an atomic trace. The table is accessed for flag restoration in response to a trace abort. In a first technique, a corresponding flag checkpoint is stored in response to trace renaming, and the flag checkpoints are updated as flags are modified. Flags are restored from the flag checkpoint corresponding to an aborted atomic trace. In a second technique, a corresponding flag checkpoint is allocated to an invalid state in response to trace renaming, and initialized on-demand when flags are first modified in accordance with the atomic trace. Flags are restored from the oldest flag checkpoint starting from an aborted atomic trace.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

Priority benefit claims for this application are made in theaccompanying Application Data Sheet (if any). To the extent permitted bythe type of the instant application, this application incorporates byreference for all purposes the following application(s), which are allowned by the owner of the instant application:

-   -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/730,550, filed Oct. 26,        2005, first named inventor John Gregory Favor, and entitled        CHECKPOINTING STATUS FLAGS FOR ATOMIC TRACES;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/730,810, filed Oct. 27,        2005, first named inventor John Gregory Favor, and entitled        ALLOCATION AND DEALLOCATION OF SHADOW REGISTERS USED BY ATOMIC        TRACES;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/731,962, filed Oct. 31,        2005, first named inventor John Gregory Favor, and entitled        DETERMINING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ABORT TRIGGER IN AN ATOMIC        TRACE;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/732,438, filed Nov. 1,        2005, first named inventor John Gregory Favor, and entitled        ZERO-CYCLE EXECUTION OF CLEAR OPERATION AND AUTOMATIC REGISTER        FREE;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/862,609, filed Oct. 24,        2006, first named inventor Christopher P. Nelson, and entitled        EXCEPTION HANDLING FOR ATOMIC TRACES;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/832,848, Jul. 23, 2006,        first named inventor Don Alpert, and entitled MICROPROCESSOR        WITH CACHES FOR INSTRUCTIONS, BASIC BLOCKS, AND TRACES;    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/832,822, Jul. 23, 2006,        first named inventor Don Alpert, and entitled MICROPROCESSOR        WITH COHERENT CACHES FOR BASIC BLOCKS AND TRACES; and    -   U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/863,125, Oct. 26, 2006,        first named inventor Christopher P. Nelson, and entitled METHOD        FOR EARLY DEALLOCATION OF PHYSICAL REGISTERS WHEN SHADOW        REGISTERS ARE USED.

This application is related to the following application(s) filedsimultaneously herewith, and to the extent permitted by the type of theinstant application, this application incorporates by reference for allpurposes the following application(s):

-   -   U.S. Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 11/553,453 entitled        CHECKPOINTING FLAGS DURING ATOMIC TRACE RENAMING; and    -   U.S. Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 11/553,455 entitled        CHECKPOINTING FLAGS ON-DEMAND FOR ATOMIC TRACES.

BACKGROUND

A processor (such as a microprocessor) processes instructions accordingto an instruction set architecture. The processing comprises fetching,decoding, and executing the instructions. Some instruction setarchitectures define a programming model where fetching, decoding,executing, and any other functions for processing an instruction areapparently performed in strict order, beginning after the functions forall prior instructions have completed, and completing before anyfunctions of a successor instruction has begun. Such an instruction setarchitecture provides a programming model where instructions areexecuted in program order.

Some processors process instructions in various combinations ofoverlapped (or non-overlapped), parallel (or serial), and speculative(or non-speculative) manners, for example using pipelining in functionalunits, superscalar issue, and out-of-order execution. Thus someprocessors are enabled to execute instructions and access memory in anorder that differs from the program order of the programming model.Nevertheless, the processors are constrained to produce resultsconsistent with results that would be produced by processinginstructions entirely in program order.

In some instruction set architectures, instructions are characterized asbeing either sequential or non-sequential, i.e. specifying a change incontrol flow (such as a branch). Processing after a sequentialinstruction implicitly continues with a next instruction that iscontiguous with the sequential instruction, while processing after achange in control flow instruction optionally occurs with either thecontiguous next instruction or with another next instruction (frequentlynon-contiguous) as specified by the control flow instruction.

Some instruction set architectures define one or more conditions thatare exceptions that alter the normal sequence of instructions, above andbeyond sequential and non-sequential instruction control flow. Examplesof exceptions comprise an interrupt for a peripheral device, an overflowfor an arithmetic calculation, a protection violation for a memoryaccess, and a breakpoint for debugging. An instruction set architecturethat requires exceptions to be handled consistently with the programorder provides precise exceptions. In addition to exceptions defined bythe architecture, in some situations a processor processes similarevents that are specific to an implementation, although transparent tothe programming model. For example, a processor that predicts branchesto execute instructions speculatively also handles incorrect branchpredictions. A variety of techniques, such as reorder buffers andhistory buffers, have been applied to implement precise exceptions forprocessors that execute instructions in overlapped, parallel, andspeculative manners. For example, see “Implementing Precise Interruptsin Pipelined Processors” by J. E. Smith and A. R. Pleszkun in IEEETransactions on Computers, 37, 5 (May. 1988), pages 562-573.

Some instruction set architectures comprise flags that monitorconditions associated with some instructions, and the flags also controlaspects of execution of some instructions. For example, an instructionperforms an add operation, modifying a carry flag to indicate whetherthere was a carry out from the result. A subsequent instruction performsan add-with-carry operation that uses the carry flag as carry input tothe addition calculation. In some instruction set architecturesadditional flags indicate other conditions, such as whether a calculatedresult is negative, zero, or positive. Some processors implementmechanisms to provide flags for an X86-compatible instruction setarchitecture (for example, see U.S. Pat. No. 5,632,023 issued to Whiteet al.).

Some instruction set architectures (such as an X86-compatiblearchitecture) comprise complex instructions. Some microprocessorimplementations comprise translation hardware to convert theinstructions (including complex instructions) into sequences of one ormore relatively simpler operations referred to as micro-operations.Additionally, certain implementations store sequences ofmicro-operations that correspond to one or more instructions in a cache,such as a trace cache. For example, Intel's Pentium 4 microprocessor, asdescribed by Hinton et al (in “The Microarchitecture Of The Pentium 4Processor”, Intel Technology Journal Q1, 2001), has a trace cache.

Furthermore, it has been proposed to optimize the micro-operations thatcorrespond to a trace, such as by combining, reordering, or eliminatingmicro-operations. For example, see “Putting the Fill Unit to Work:.Dynamic Optimizations for Trace Cache Microprocessors” by Friendly at alin Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE international Symposium onMicroarchitecture, pages 173-181. Sometimes the micro-operationoptimizing blurs sequencing and boundaries of instructions along withassociated status flag modifications. For example, status flagmodifications may be reordered or eliminated.

All of the foregoing patents and references are hereby incorporated byreference for all purposes.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention, in response to complexities associated with management offlags in processors enabled for speculative execution of traces ofmicro-operations, provides flag restoration from checkpoints for abortsof atomic traces. In some embodiments, a method comprises managinggroups of actions associated with instructions as atomic elements thatare either committed entirely according to a program order or abortedentirely; managing a correspondence between the groups of actions andcorresponding saved copies of speculative flags; and selectivelyrestoring, in response to aborting one of the groups of actions, thespeculative flags as a function of the saved copy of the speculativeflags corresponding to the aborted group of actions; and wherein themanaging the groups of actions, the managing the correspondence, and theselectively restoring occur as part of processing the groups of actionsby a processor implemented within an integrated circuit and compatiblewith execution of the instructions.

In some embodiments, a processor comprises speculative execution controllogic enabled to commit and to abort groups of actions associated withinstructions as respective atomic elements in accordance with a programorder between the groups of actions; flag checkpoint managing logicenabled to manage correspondences between the groups of actions andcorresponding saved copies of speculative flags; and flag restoringlogic enabled, in response to an abort of one of the groups of actions,to selectively restore the speculative flags as a function of the savedcopy of the speculative flags corresponding to the aborted group ofactions.

In some embodiments, a processor comprises means for committing andaborting atomic traces in accordance with a program order between theatomic traces; means for managing flag checkpoints enabled to managecorrespondences between the atomic traces and corresponding flagcheckpoints; and means for restoring speculative flags enabled, inresponse to an abort of one of the atomic traces, to selectively restorethe speculative flags as a function of the flag checkpoint correspondingto the aborted atomic trace.

In some embodiments, a medium readable by a computer system containsdescriptions that specify, when interpreted by the computer system, acircuit that comprises a speculative execution control sub-circuitenabled to direct committing and aborting groups of actions associatedwith instructions as respective atomic elements in accordance with aprogram order between the groups of actions; a flag checkpoint managingsub-circuit enabled to manage correspondences between the groups ofactions and corresponding saved copies of speculative flags; and a flagrestoring sub-circuit enabled, in response to an abort of one of thegroups of actions, to selectively restore the speculative flags as afunction of the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions.

The invention is optionally embodied in various embodiments, includingbut not limited to one or more of a process, an article of manufacture,an apparatus, a system, and a computer readable medium such as acomputer readable storage medium wherein program instructions,interpretable parameters, and hardware descriptions are stored.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the inventionwith a processor having checkpoint/restore of flags for atomic traces.

FIG. 2 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the inventionusing a first technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect toatomic traces.

FIG. 3 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the inventionusing a second technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect toatomic traces.

FIG. 4 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the inventionrelating to selected portions of processing associated with selectingand reading of an appropriate flag checkpoint.

FIG. 5 illustrates an example of operation of an embodiment of theinvention in accordance with the first technique for checkpoint/restoreof flags with respect to atomic traces.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of operation of an embodiment of theinvention in accordance with the second technique for checkpoint/restoreof flags with respect to atomic traces.

FIG. 7 illustrates selected details of an embodiment of the inventionrelating to building atomic traces from instruction groups.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention isprovided below along with accompanying figures illustrating selecteddetails of the invention. The invention is described in connection withthe embodiments. It is well established that it is neither necessary,practical, or possible to exhaustively describe every embodiment of theinvention. Thus the embodiments herein are understood to be merelyexemplary, the invention is expressly not limited to or by any or all ofthe embodiments herein, and the invention encompasses numerousalternatives, modifications and equivalents. To avoid monotony in theexposition, a variety of word labels (including but not limited to:first, last, certain, various, and some) may be applied to separate setsof embodiments; as used herein such labels are expressly not meant toconvey quality, or any form of preference or prejudice, but merely toconveniently distinguish among the separate sets. The order of someoperations of disclosed processes is alterable within the scope of theinvention. Wherever multiple embodiments serve to describe variations inprocess, method, and/or program instruction features, other embodimentsare contemplated that in accordance with a predetermined or adynamically determined criterion perform static and/or dynamic selectionof one of a plurality of modes of operation corresponding respectivelyto a plurality of the multiple embodiments. Numerous specific detailsare set forth in the following description in order to provide athorough understanding of the invention. These details are provided forthe purpose of example and the invention may be practiced according tothe claims without some or all of these specific details. For thepurpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technicalfields related to the invention has not been described in detail so thatthe invention is not unnecessarily obscured. As is described in moredetail in the Conclusion section, the invention encompasses all possiblemodifications and variations within the scope of the issued claims.

INTRODUCTION

This introduction is included only to facilitate the more rapidunderstanding of the Detailed Description. The invention is not limitedto the concepts described in the introduction, as the paragraphs of anyintroduction are necessarily an abridged view of the entire subject andare not meant to be an exhaustive or restrictive description. Forexample, the introduction that follows provides overview informationlimited by space and organization to only some embodiments. There are infact many other embodiments, including those to which claims willultimately be drawn, that are described throughout the balance of thespecification.

Terms

Elsewhere herein various terms are used with respect to descriptions ofembodiments. Examples of some of the terms follow.

An example of a trace is a finite sequence of instructions ormicro-operations corresponding to dynamically consecutive (according toprogram execution order) instructions. An example of an atomic trace isa trace that is treated, in its entirety, as a single indivisibleoperation or as having a single entry and a single exit (i.e. the traceis completed in full or not at all). In some embodiments atomic tracesare produced by hardware translation of sequences of instructions usedby software according to a reference architecture (such as the PowerPCarchitecture, an X86-compatible architecture, or any other similarstandardized instruction processing architecture). In some usagescenarios an atomic trace may correspond to instructions from more thanone basic block, i.e. have one or more interior conditional branches. Asa degenerate case, an atomic trace may correspond to a singleinstruction. In some usage scenarios speculative execution restorepoints correspond to atomic trace boundaries. See FIG. 7 and theassociated description for selected details of an embodiment of buildingatomic traces from instruction groups.

Overview

Managing speculative execution via groups of one or more actions (suchas instructions, operations, or micro-operations) corresponding toatomic traces enables advantageous processing of flag-producing andflag-consuming actions. Atomic traces advantageously enable singlecheckpoints of flag values at atomic trace boundaries, without requiringcheckpoints for individual actions within each atomic trace, even whenan atomic trace has more than one action that modifies one or moreflags.

Advantageous processing of speculative modifications to flags, such asin usage scenarios having atomic traces, is via speculative flagsmanaged, in various embodiments, by any combination of checkpointing thespeculative flags during renaming of the atomic traces, checkpointingthe speculative flags on-demand for the atomic traces, and restoring thespeculative flags from checkpoints for aborts of the atomic traces.

In a processor system, checkpointing the speculative flags of atomictraces embodies an advantageously simplified form of flag renaming. Thesimplified renaming is enabled in part by processing all actionsproducing new flag values in-order with respect to each other and allactions using flag values. Note that actions using flag values, in someembodiments, are processed out-of-order with respect to each other. Aflag checkpoint table is used to store a plurality of flag checkpoints,each corresponding to an atomic trace. When an atomic trace is aborted,the table is selectively accessed to provide flag information to restorethe speculative flags.

In a first technique, when an atomic trace is renamed, a correspondingflag checkpoint is stored. An action of a particular atomic trace thatupdates the speculative flags updates all entries in the tablecorresponding to atomic traces that are younger than the particularatomic trace. If the particular atomic trace is aborted, then the flagcheckpoint corresponding to the particular atomic trace is used forrestoring the speculative flags.

In a second technique, when an atomic trace is renamed, a correspondingflag checkpoint is allocated to an invalid state. Associated with anaction of a particular atomic trace that updates the speculative flags,the particular flag checkpoint allocated to the particular atomic traceis checked for validity. If the particular flag checkpoint is invalid,then the particular flag checkpoint is initialized with the speculativeflags values before any effects of the action, and marked as valid. Ifthe check determines the particular flag checkpoint is valid, then nofurther processing with respect to the flag checkpoints is performed inassociation with the action. If an atomic trace is aborted, then thetable is searched according to forward program order (i.e. from older toyounger), starting with the flag checkpoint corresponding to the abortedatomic trace. The first valid flag checkpoint found is used to restorethe speculative flags. If no valid flag checkpoint is found aftersearching through the flag checkpoint corresponding to the youngestoutstanding atomic trace, then the speculative flags are correct withoutrestoration.

In some embodiments of a processor, a plurality of flag checkpoints arestored and subsequently selectively accessed to restore speculativeflags in response to an abort of a group of actions, for example in acontext of speculative execution.

In some embodiments of a processor, flag checkpoints are associated withgroups of actions, and when each group of actions is renamed,speculative flags are stored in the flag checkpoint associated with therenamed group of actions. When updating the speculative flags inresponse to one of the actions of a particular one of the groups ofactions, a portion of the flag checkpoints are updated. In someembodiments, the portion corresponds to the flag checkpoints associatedwith the groups of actions that are younger than the particular group ofactions. In some embodiments when one of the groups of actions isaborted, the flag checkpoint associated with the aborted group ofactions is accessed and used to restore the speculative flags.

In some embodiments of a processor, respective flag checkpoints areallocated (as invalid) for groups of actions. When speculative flags areupdated in response to an action of a particular one of the groups ofactions, the particular flag checkpoint allocated to the particulargroup of actions is determined to be valid (or invalid). If determinedinvalid, then the particular flag checkpoint is updated and marked asvalid. The update is with values of the speculative flags beforeexecuting any of the flag-producing actions of the particular group ofactions. In some embodiments, the particular group of actions isaborted, and in response a portion of the flag checkpoints are accessed.The portion comprises the particular flag checkpoint. In someembodiments, the portion further comprises the flag checkpoint allocatedto a next one of the groups of actions. In some embodiments, the nextone of the groups of actions immediately follows the particular group ofactions with respect to program order. In some embodiments, if the nextflag checkpoint associated with the next group of actions is invalid,then the speculative flags are not affected by the abort of theparticular group of actions. In some embodiments, if the particular flagcheckpoint is valid, then the particular flag checkpoint is written intothe speculative flags in response to the abort. In some embodiments, ifthe particular flag checkpoint is invalid and the next flag checkpointis valid, then the next flag checkpoint is written into the speculativeflags. In some embodiments where the groups of actions correspond totraces, the flag checkpoint allocation occurs in association withrenaming the traces.

In some embodiments, the groups of actions correspond to groups ofmicro-operations produced by translating one or more correspondinginstructions. In some embodiments, the groups of actions correspond totraces of micro-operations produced by translating one or morecorresponding instructions. In some embodiments, the groups of actionscorrespond to an atomic trace of micro-operations produced bytranslating one or more corresponding instructions. In some embodiments,the groups of actions correspond to groups of instructions.

In some embodiments, the flag checkpoints are maintained in a flagcheckpoint table. In some embodiments, entries of the flag checkpointtable comprise a validity bit.

In some embodiments, the flags comprise one or more control flags.According to various embodiments, the control flags comprise anycombination of trap, interrupt, string direction, privilege level,nested task, resume, virtual mode, alignment check, and virtualinterrupt control flags of various X86-compatible architectures. In someembodiments, the flags comprise one or more status flags. According tovarious embodiments, the status flags comprise any combination of carry,parity, auxiliary, zero, sign, and overflow status flags of the variousX86-compatible architectures.

Processor with Flag Checkpoint/Restore

FIG. 1 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment ofcheckpoint/restore of flags for atomic traces. Various embodiments ofProcessor 101 are enabled for any combination ofoverlapped/non-overlapped, parallel/serial, andspeculative/non-speculative execution, as controlled, for example, byall or portions of Pipeline Control logic 120 (couplings between thePipeline Control and other elements of FIG. 1 are omitted for clarity).In some embodiments micro-operations are built from instructions havinga program order by trace building logic into atomic traces that areretained by a trace cache. The atomic traces are committed (ifsuccessful) as a group or aborted (if not successful) as a group ascontrolled by the Pipeline Control logic in accordance with the programorder of the instructions. The Processor comprises a set of speculativeor current flags shown as Speculative Flags 102 (comprising, forexample, a string direction control flag and carry, zero, and paritystatus flags). The Speculative Flags are updated by Flag Modificationlogic 103. The Flag Modification logic computes new flag values (such asa carry produced by an add instruction) and also controls theSpeculative Flags to store the new flag values appropriately.

The Speculative Flags are read by various elements requiring flag valuesas inputs to computations that depend on the flag values (such as anadd-with-carry instruction), as illustrated by Flag Dependent logic 104.The Flag Dependent logic provides new flag values or speculative flagvalues to be used for computing new flag values, according toembodiment, to Flag Modification logic 103.

According to various embodiments, Flag Modification logic 103, and FlagDependent logic 104, and Pipeline Control logic 120, or any portionsthereof, are comprised or distributed in various combinations of one ormore functional units, arithmetic logic units, and other similarcomputational and control modules.

Flag values to be used for restoration of architectural state to undospeculative flag modifications are stored in Flag Checkpoint Table 105.As illustrated, the Flag Checkpoint Table provides for a plurality offlag checkpoints, shown conceptually as Flag Checkpoint 110.1, FlagCheckpoint 110.2 . . . Flag Checkpoint 110.N. In some embodiments eachflag checkpoint has a respective valid bit, shown conceptually as ValidBit 111.1, Valid Bit 111.2 . . . Valid Bit 111.N. Values are providedfor storage into the Flag Checkpoint Table via Speculative Flags 102 andFlag Modification logic 103. The Flag Checkpoint Table is referenced toreturn the Speculative Flags to a set of previous values (to undospeculation by reference to one of Flag Checkpoint 110.1, FlagCheckpoint 110.2 . . . 110.N, for example) by Flag Restoration logic106. In various embodiments various portions of the Flag CheckpointTable are comprised in a regular structure such as a storage array. Insome embodiments the Valid Bits are comprised in random logic not partof the regular structure.

In various embodiments the Flag Checkpoint Table is enabled to retaincheckpoint information relating to other architectural state and/ormicro-architectural state in addition to copies of speculative flags.For example, in some embodiments a program counter or instructionpointer is retained per flag checkpoint in the Flag Checkpoint Table.

In some embodiments the flags are used (i.e. consumed) and modified(i.e. produced) strictly in order, and Speculative Flags 102 implementsonly a single copy of the flags. In some embodiments the flags are usedand modified in-order inside each atomic trace, but processed inparallel or out-of-order with respect to several outstanding atomictraces, and there is a copy of the flags associated with each of theoutstanding atomic traces.

Speculative Flags 102 may be implemented as a set of storage elements(such as flip-flops) and holds the speculative value of the flags asneeded by speculatively executing code. In some embodiments the storageelements are arranged as a collection of fields of varying width (suchas a single bit or a plurality of bits) that are individually modifiableand readable. Individually modifiable fields enable straight-forwardmerging of one or more newly produced flag values with one or morepreviously produced flag values, such as in embodiments where flagmodifications are made according to original program order ofinstructions. For example, a micro-operation corresponding to aninstruction that modifies the zero and parity status flags, but leavesthe carry status flag unchanged (such as an X86-compatible decrementinstruction) modifies the zero and parity fields, and leaves unchangedthe string direction and carry fields. Instructions using flags areexecuted in part by using flag values read from Speculative Flags 102(such as referring to outputs of the flip-flops).

According to various embodiments various combinations of all or portionsof functions performed by Speculative Flags 102, Flag Modification logic103, Flag Dependent logic 104, Flag Restoration logic 106, and PipelineControl logic 120 are specified by descriptions compatible withprocessing by a computer system (e.g. Verilog, VHDL, or any similarhardware description language). In some embodiments the processingcomprises any combination of interpretation, compilation, and synthesisto produce or specify logic suitable for inclusion on an integratedcircuit.

Flag Checkpoint/Restore Operation

A first technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect to atomictraces comprises storing a checkpoint of the speculative flags for eachatomic trace. Each respective checkpoint corresponds to properarchitectural flag state prior to executing the respective atomic trace.When each atomic trace is first renamed (i.e. presented for possibleexecution), the speculative flag values are written into a correspondingcheckpoint. The values written may not be correct (yet), as priormicro-operations may not have completed, leaving some outstanding flagupdates still to be processed.

Micro-operations that update one or more flags record new values in thespeculative flags and also modify all flag checkpoints (in the flagcheckpoint table) for all younger (i.e. corresponding to instructions“in the future” with respect to program order) atomic traces. If thereare no atomic traces started beyond the one currently executing (i.e.including the micro-operation updating the flags), then no flagcheckpoint table writes occur. If there are additional one or moreatomic traces started beyond the atomic trace currently executing, thenupdated flags are written to each of flag checkpoints corresponding tothe started traces. Thus with respect to a first atomic traceimmediately followed in program order by a second atomic trace, afterall flag updates for the first atomic trace have been processed, flagcheckpoint information corresponding to the second atomic trace isguaranteed to be completely up to date (i.e. any outstanding flagupdates will have been processed). Note that if the first atomic tracehas no flag updates, then the checkpoint values for the second atomictrace are identical to the checkpoint values of the first atomic trace.

If an atomic trace is aborted (i.e. micro-operations performed inresponse to the atomic trace are undone), then the flag checkpointassociated with the aborted trace is read out and written into thespeculative flags. As long as all earlier atomic traces (with respect tothe trace being aborted) have completed any associated flag updates(including writing appropriate flag checkpoints), then the flagcheckpoint associated with the aborted trace has the correctarchitectural state to restore the flags in response to the abort.

FIG. 2 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the firsttechnique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect to atomic traces.The figure is representative of processing relating to one atomic traceand a corresponding flag checkpoint. A plurality of atomic traces (andcorresponding flag checkpoints) may be processed according to the figurewholly or partially in parallel, or a sequence of atomic traces (andcorresponding flag checkpoints) may be processed substantially inseries, according to the figure. Thus micro-operations in the figure maybe performed for a single trace or for a plurality of traces in variousrelatively overlapping or non-overlapping manners according to variousembodiments and various pipeline conditions.

An atomic trace is renamed and flow begins (“Start” 201). Flow thencontinues to save a copy of Speculative Flags 102 (see FIG. 1) as acheckpoint in Flag Checkpoint Table 105 (“Record Checkpoint” 202). Foran example atomic trace, the checkpoint is saved in Flag Checkpoint110.1. Flag modifications, such as produced by Flag Modification logic103, and generated by micro-operations relating to atomic traces thatare older than the renamed atomic trace then update Speculative Flags102 and also update checkpoints in Flag Checkpoint Table 105 forrelatively younger atomic traces (“Update Checkpoint(s)” 203). Accordingto the example, Flag Checkpoint 110.1 is updated, along with any otheryounger flag checkpoints. In some usage scenarios an atomic trace hasmore than one flag-producing micro-operation, and thus “UpdateCheckpoint(s)” 203, is performed repeatedly, once for eachflag-producing micro-operation in each older trace.

After at least all atomic traces that are older than the renamed atomictrace are processed (and thus all outstanding flag modifications havebeen recognized and recorded in any associated flag checkpoints), adetermination is made as to whether the renamed atomic trace may beallowed to complete normally or whether micro-operations associated withit are to be unwound (“Abort Trace?” 204). If the trace requires noabort processing (“No” 204N), then processing relating to the trace andany possible flag checkpoint/restore micro-operations is complete (“End”299). Storage used by saving the copy of the Speculative Flags as acheckpoint is then free. Note that in some embodiments and/or usagescenarios the determination is further conditional upon completion ofone or more or all micro-operations in the renamed trace.

If the trace does require abort processing (“Yes” 204Y), then the flagcheckpoint corresponding to the aborted atomic trace is read from FlagCheckpoint Table 105 (“Read Checkpoint” 205). According to the example,Flag Checkpoint 110.1 is read. The flag checkpoint read is used toupdate flag architectural state to a proper value by writing the flagcheckpoint read value into the Speculative Flags (“Restore SpeculativeFlags” 206). Reading Flag Checkpoint Table 105 and restoring SpeculativeFlags 102 are performed via Flag Restoration logic 106. Processing ofthe renamed atomic trace is then complete (“End” 299). Storage used bysaving the copy of the Speculative Flags as a checkpoint is then free.Note that the first technique does not require valid bits in flagcheckpoints (such as V 111.1).

See FIG. 5 and the associated description for a more detailed example ofoperation of an embodiment according to the first technique forcheckpoint/restore of flags with respect to atomic traces.

A second technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect toatomic traces comprises allocating (or setting aside) storage for a flagcheckpoint in the flag checkpoint table for each atomic trace prior toexecution of each atomic trace. One flag checkpoint is allocated foreach atomic trace. When each atomic trace is first renamed, the validbit for the allocated flag checkpoint is set to “invalid” (having anencoding such as 0), thus marking the checkpoint as invalid.

A micro-operation of a particular atomic trace that updates one or moreof the flags checks the valid bit of the particular flag checkpointallocated to the particular atomic trace. If the particular flagcheckpoint is invalid, then values of the speculative flags prior toexecution of the micro-operation are saved in the allocated flagcheckpoint, and the valid bit is set to “valid” (having an encoding suchas 1), marking the checkpoint as valid. Thus compared to the firsttechnique, the second technique copies flag values prior to modificationby an active atomic trace, and records the copied values in the flagcheckpoint allocated for the active atomic trace, rather than intocheckpoints associated with atomic traces younger (with respect toprogram order) than the active atomic trace. If an atomic tracecomprises any flag-modifying micro-operations, then the associatedallocated flag checkpoint contains a valid copy of the flags prior toexecution of the atomic trace. If an atomic trace is free of anyflag-modifying micro-operations, then the valid bit of the associatedallocated flag checkpoint remains invalid.

If an atomic trace is aborted and the specific flag checkpoint allocatedto the aborted atomic trace is marked valid, then the specific flagcheckpoint is read out and written into the speculative flags. If thespecific flag checkpoint is invalid when the atomic trace is aborted,then a search is made for a valid flag checkpoint associated with anatomic trace that is younger in the program order (i.e. having acheckpoint allocated later) than the aborted atomic trace. The searchingis performed starting with the atomic trace (if any) that immediatelyfollows the aborted atomic trace, and proceeds forward in program orderexamining the flag checkpoints allocated to every outstanding youngeratomic trace. If a younger valid flag checkpoint is found, then theyounger valid flag checkpoint is read out and written into thespeculative flags. If no younger valid flag checkpoints are located,then no restoration is needed, as the speculative flags representcorrect architectural state, i.e. there have been no further flagmodifications with respect to the aborted atomic trace. In some usagescenarios, the second technique performs less work (and thus consumesless power) than the first technique when there are no atomic traceaborts, at the expense of additional work (and thus greater powerconsumption) when there is an atomic trace abort.

FIG. 3 illustrates selected aspects of an embodiment of the secondtechnique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect to atomic traces.As in FIG. 2, FIG. 3 is representative of processing relating to oneatomic trace, and a plurality of atomic traces may be processedaccording to the figure wholly or partially in parallel, or a sequenceof atomic traces may be processed substantially in series, according tothe figure. Thus micro-operations in the figure may be performed for asingle trace or for a plurality of traces in various relativelyoverlapping or non-overlapping manners according to various embodimentsand various pipeline conditions.

An atomic trace is renamed and flow begins (“Start” 301). Flow thencontinues by setting aside an entry in Flag Checkpoint Table 105 (seeFIG. 1), marking the entry as invalid by writing the valid bitassociated with the entry (“Allocate (Invalid) Checkpoint” 302). For anexample atomic trace, the allocated checkpoint is Flag Checkpoint 110.1,and the associated validity marker Valid Bit 111.1 is written (e.g. to0).

Flag modifications, such as produced by Flag Modification logic 103, andgenerated by one or more flag-producing micro-operations relating to therenamed atomic trace, are processed. Then a determination is made as toif the allocated flag checkpoint is valid (“Valid Checkpoint?” 303). Ifthe checkpoint is invalid (“No” 303N), then processing proceeds torecord flag information in the entry and mark the entry valid (“WriteCheckpoint, Mark Valid” 304). In the example atomic trace, Valid Bit111.1 is checked and if it is invalid, then Flag Checkpoint 110.1 iswritten and marked valid by writing Valid Bit 111.1 (e.g. to 1). Thevalues written in the flag checkpoint correspond to values ofSpeculative Flags 102 (of FIG. 1) prior to any flag modifications madeby the renamed atomic trace. Processing relating to checking the validbits and conditionally writing flag information along with marking thewritten information valid is performed by various combinations of FlagModification logic 103 and Flag Checkpoint Table 105, according tovarious embodiments. After modifying the flag checkpoint, flow proceedsto determine if micro-operations to be performed by the renamed traceare complete (“Trace Finished?” 305).

If the checkpoint is (already) valid (“Yes” 303Y), then flow proceedsdirectly to determine if micro-operations to be performed by the renamedtrace are complete (“Trace Finished?” 305), i.e. no modifications aremade to information in Flag Checkpoint Table 105. If the trace is notyet completely processed, i.e. has any outstanding micro-operations toperform (“No” 305N), then flow proceeds back to process further flagmodifications that may result while performing the outstandingmicro-operations associated with the trace (via “Valid Checkpoint?”303).

If the renamed trace has completed processing (“Yes” 305Y), then flowproceeds to determine if the trace may be allowed to complete normallyor whether micro-operations associated with it are to be unwound (“AbortTrace?” 306). If the trace requires no abort processing (“No” 306N),then processing relating to the trace and any possible flagcheckpoint/restore micro-operations is complete (“End” 399). If thetrace does require abort processing (“Yes” 306Y), then a selected flagcheckpoint appropriate for processing the abort is conditionally readfrom Flag Checkpoint Table 105 (“Select/Read Checkpoint” 307) andconditionally written into Speculative Flags 102 (“Conditional RestoreSpeculative Flags” 308) under control of Flag Restoration logic 106.Processing of the renamed atomic trace is then complete (“End” 399).

As a special case, if there are no flag-producing micro-operationsrelating to the renamed atomic trace, then the allocated flag checkpointdetermination (“Valid Checkpoint?” 303) operates as if the checkpoint isvalid (“Yes” 303Y), even though the checkpoint is not valid, and flowproceeds directly to determine if micro-operations to be performed bythe renamed trace are complete (“Trace Finished?” 305). Flow loops backto repeat the determinations (“Valid Checkpoint?” 303 and “TraceFinished?” 305) until the micro-operations of the renamed trace arecomplete.

In various embodiments, the allocating and the searching are inaccordance with a head pointer, a tail pointer, or both that identifyappropriate Flag Checkpoints in the Flag Checkpoint Table. The headpointer identifies the flag checkpoint allocated to the oldestoutstanding atomic trace, and the tail pointer identifies the flagcheckpoint allocated to the youngest atomic trace. Associated with theallocating, the tail pointer is advanced to point to the next allocatedflag checkpoint. When the tail pointer is “adjacent to” the headpointer, then further allocation is held until one or more flagcheckpoints are freed. Associated with committing an atomic trace, thehead pointer is advanced to point to the flag checkpoint allocated tothe oldest still outstanding atomic trace after the committing.Associated with the searching, the tail pointer identifies the last flagcheckpoint to examine for validity. In some embodiments having a headpointer and lacking a tail pointer, as an atomic trace is committed, thecorresponding flag checkpoint is invalidated. Associated with thesearching, the flag checkpoint adjacent to the flag checkpointidentified by the head pointer is the last flag checkpoint to examinefor validity.

See FIG. 6 and the associated description for an example of operation ofan embodiment according to the second technique for checkpoint/restoreof flags with respect to atomic traces.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of selected portions of processingassociated with selecting and reading of an appropriate flag checkpoint(such as performed in “Select/Read Checkpoint” 307). The objective ofthe processing is to read the oldest (if any) valid flag checkpoint,searching from an aborted atomic trace forward in program order (i.e.from older to younger) until all flag checkpoints corresponding to alloutstanding atomic traces are searched. If no valid flag checkpoint isfound, then Speculative Flags 102 are already correct (i.e. norestoration is performed).

Processing starts from a selected checkpoint (such as one of FlagCheckpoint 110.1, Flag Checkpoint 110.2 . . . Flag Checkpoint 110.N ofFIG. 1) that corresponds to a trace to be aborted (“Start” 401). Flowthen proceeds to determine if the selected checkpoint has been writtenwith proper flag state (“Selected Checkpoint Valid?” 402). If so (“Yes”402Y), then the oldest valid checkpoint (searching forward) has beenlocated and is used to restore the architectural state of theSpeculative Flags. Flow then proceeds to access the selected checkpoint(“Read Selected Checkpoint” 403) and processing is complete (“End” 499).

If the selected checkpoint is not valid (“No” 402N), then flow proceedsto determine if all of the remaining (younger) checkpoints have beenexamined (“Checkpoints Exhausted?” 404). If so (“Yes” 404Y), thenprocessing is complete (“End” 499) without having found a flagcheckpoint to use to restore the Speculative Flags. Thus the SpeculativeFlags are already correct and need no rollback associated with theatomic trace abort. If the checkpoints are not all examined (“No” 404N),then flow proceeds to select the immediately next (in program order)flag checkpoint (“Select Next Younger Checkpoint” 405). Flow then loopsback to check if the next selected checkpoint is valid (“SelectedCheckpoint Valid?” 402) and continues accordingly.

Continuing with the example atomic trace, assume that the example atomictrace is the older of a pair of atomic traces that are adjacent to eachother with respect to program order, i.e. there are no interveninginstructions or atomic traces between the older and younger atomictraces of the pair. Further assume that the younger atomic trace isallocated Flag Checkpoint 110.2 and associated Valid Bit 111.2.

If, at the time of processing the atomic trace abort, Valid Bit 111.1 isvalid (i.e. a micro-operation in the aborted trace has updated theflags), then Flag Checkpoint 110.1 is read out and used to restore thespeculative flags. If Valid Bit 111.1 is invalid, then Valid Bit 111.2is examined. If Valid Bit 111.2 is valid (i.e. a micro-operation in theyounger trace has updated the flags), then Flag Checkpoint 110.2 is readout and used to restore the speculative flags. If Valid Bit 111.2 isinvalid, then there have been no flag modifications, and the SpeculativeFlags values are correct without restoration.

OPERATIONAL EXAMPLES

FIG. 5 illustrates an example of operation of an embodiment according tothe first technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect toatomic traces. “Flag Checkpoints Before Trace 2 Flag Production” 520illustrates exemplary information retained in various Flag Checkpoints110.1-110.5 (as embodied in Flag Checkpoint Table 105 of FIG. 1) beforechanges to the flags have been produced by processing relating to “Trace2 Flag-Producer” 510. “Flag Checkpoints After Trace 2 Flag Production”521 illustrates exemplary information retained in Flag Checkpoints110.1-110.5 after changes to the flags have been produced by processingrelating to “Trace 2 Flag-Producer” 510.

More specifically, before processing relating to “Trace 2 Flag-Producer”510, the flag checkpoints corresponding to Traces 1-5 (Flag Checkpoints110.1-110.5, respectively) contain values ‘xxxx’, ‘0110’, ‘0010’,‘0010’, and ‘xxxx’, respectively. Note that each flag checkpoint in theillustrated example operation is comprised of four single-bit flags,such as a string direction control flag, a carry status flag, a zerostatus flag, and a parity status flag. Thus Flag Checkpoint 110.1(corresponding to Trace 1) stores no values of importance in the example(i.e. Flag Checkpoint 110.1 is unused), while Flag Checkpoint 110.2(corresponding to Trace 2) stores values of 0, 1, 1, and 0, respectivelyfor the string direction, carry, zero and parity flags. In theillustrated example, the Trace 2 Flag Checkpoint has been writtenpreviously during renaming of Trace 2 (e.g. as in “Record Checkpoint”202 of FIG. 2). Note that in other usage scenarios the Trace 2 FlagCheckpoint would have been modified by one or more flag checkpointupdates due to processing of flag-producing micro-operations of tracesolder than Trace 2 subsequent to the renaming of Trace 2.

Execution of “Trace 2 Flag-Producer” 510 (e.g. by Flag Modificationlogic 103 of FIG. 1) updates Speculative Flags 102 (of FIG. 1) withvalues ‘1100’, as illustrated conceptually by dashed-arrow Exec 511.Execution of the Trace 2 flag-producer micro-operation also results inupdates to flag checkpoints corresponding to all traces younger thanTrace 2 (e.g. as in “Update Checkpoint(s)” 203 of FIG. 2). The updatesto younger trace flag checkpoints are illustrated conceptually bydashed-arrows Ckpts 513-514, respectively, to Flag Checkpoints 110.3-4(corresponding to Traces 3 and 4). Note that “Trace 2 Flag-Producer” 510is representative of one or more updates to the Speculative Flags andyounger Flag Checkpoints, corresponding to one or more flag-producingmicro-operations in Trace 2. If Trace 2 is aborted, then the SpeculativeFlags are restored from Flag Checkpoint 110.2 (corresponding to Trace2), as illustrated conceptually by dotted-arrow Abort 512 (e.g. as in“Read Checkpoint” 205 and “Restore Speculative Flags” 206 of FIG. 2).

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of operation of an embodiment according tothe second technique for checkpoint/restore of flags with respect toatomic traces. “Before Trace 4 Flag Production” 620 illustratesexemplary information retained in Speculative Flags 102 (of FIG. 1) andin various Flag Checkpoints 110.1-110.5 and associated Validity Bits111.1-111.5 (as embodied in Flag Checkpoint Table 105 of FIG. 1) beforechanges to the flags have been produced by processing relating to “Trace4 Flag-Producer” 610. “After Trace 4 Flag Production” 621 illustratesexemplary information retained in Speculative Flags 102 and FlagCheckpoints 110.1-110.5 and associated Validity Bits 111.1-111.5 afterchanges to the flags have been produced by processing relating to “Trace4 Flag-Producer” 610.

More specifically, before processing relating to “Trace 4 Flag-Producer”610, the flag checkpoints corresponding to Traces 1-5 (Flag Checkpoints110.1-110.5, respectively) contain values ‘xxxx’, ‘0110’, ‘xxxx’, and‘xxxx’, respectively. The associated Validity bits are ‘x’, ‘1’, ‘0’,‘0’ and ‘x’, respectively. Note that each flag checkpoint in theillustrated example operation is comprised of four single-bit flags,such as a string direction control flag, a carry status flag, a zerostatus flag, and a parity status flag. Thus Flag Checkpoint 110.1(corresponding to Trace 1) stores no values and has no validity ofimportance in the example (i.e. Flag Checkpoint 110.1 is not allocated).Flag Checkpoint 110.2 (corresponding to Trace 2) is valid and storesvalues of 0, 1, 1, and 0, respectively for the string direction, carry,zero and parity flags. Flag Checkpoints 110.3 and 110.4 are invalid(111.3 and 111.4 are zero) and store no values of importance. Theinvalid flag checkpoints are allocated but as yet unused (e.g. as aresult of “Allocate (Invalid) Checkpoint” 302 of FIG. 3). The valid flagcheckpoint has been previously allocated (to invalid) and subsequentlyrecorded into and marked valid (as in “Write Checkpoint, Mark Valid” 304of FIG. 3).

Execution of “Trace 4 Flag-Producer” 610 (e.g. by Flag Modificationlogic 103 of FIG. 1) updates Speculative Flags 102 (of FIG. 1) withvalues ‘0001’, as illustrated conceptually by dashed-arrow Exec 611.However, before any modifications to the Speculative Flags resultingfrom execution of “Trace 4 Flag-Producer” 610, Validity Bit 111.4(associated with Flag Checkpoint 110.4 and corresponding to Trace 4) ischecked to determine validity (as in “Valid Checkpoint?” 303). SinceValidity Bit 111.4 indicates invalid, Flag Checkpoint 110.4 is updatedwith the Speculative Flags value ‘1100’ (i.e. before any modificationsassociated with Trace 4), and associated Validity Bit 111.4 is writtento ‘1’ (as in “Write Checkpoint, Mark Valid” 304), as illustratedconceptually by Ckpt 613. Note that “Trace 4 Flag-Producer” 610 isrepresentative of one or more updates to the Speculative Flags, and thuson the second (if present and any subsequent) flag modificationsassociated with Trace 4, Flag Checkpoint 110.4 is left unchanged (i.e.retains ‘1100’). If Trace 4 is aborted, then the Speculative Flags arerestored from Flag Checkpoint 110.4 (corresponding to Trace 4), asillustrated conceptually by dotted-arrow Abort 612 (e.g. as in“Select/Read Checkpoint” 307 and “Conditional Restore Speculative Flags”308 of FIG. 3).

Atomic Traces

FIG. 7 illustrates selected details of an embodiment of building atomictraces from instruction groups. Conceptually Instructions 710 areanalyzed and translated into micro-operations in Atomic Traces 720.Instructions 710 are comprised of Instruction Groups 711-713. Withineach instruction group the instructions are dynamically consecutive(according to program order), and the instruction groups are dynamicallyconsecutive (according to the program order) with respect to each other,as illustrated conceptually by dashed-arrows Program Order 731-733. Thusthe program order of Instructions 710 (from first or oldest to last oryoungest) is InstrA 711.A, InstrB 711.B, InstrC 711.C, InstrD 712.D,InstrE 712.E, InstrX 713.X, InstrY 713.Y, and InstrZ 713.Z. Note that ifan instruction group has a control flow instruction, then theinstructions of the group need not be contiguous. Further note that ifthe last instruction in an instruction group is a control flowinstruction, then the following (according to the program order)instruction group need not be contiguous.

Atomic Traces 720 are comprised of Atomic Traces 721-723. Themicro-operations of each atomic trace have no defined program order withrespect to each other (e.g. the micro-operations are unordered),although the micro-operations do have a trace order with respect to eachother (i.e. the order the micro-operations appear in the trace).However, the atomic traces do have a defined program order with respectto each other (i.e. the atomic traces have a relative program order),illustrated conceptually by dash-arrows Atomic Trace Order 741 and 742.The relative program order of the atomic traces corresponds to therelative program order of the instruction groups corresponding to theatomic traces. For example, Instruction Groups 711 and 712 are inprogram order with respect to each other, and thus Atomic Traces 721 and722 are in program order with respect to each other (711/721 are firstor oldest, while 712/722 are second or younger).

Atomic traces (optionally having no internal program order) arecomprised of micro-operations from one or more instructions fromcorresponding instruction groups. Some instructions are translated intosingle micro-operations, and some instructions are translated into twoor more micro-operations. Thus according to various usage scenarios andembodiments, an atomic trace comprises the same number or a greaternumber of micro-operations as the number of instructions in thecorresponding instruction group.

More specifically, Instruction Groups 711-713 are developed intocorresponding Atomic Traces 721-723, as illustrated conceptually byassociated Trace Builds 751-753. Two micro-operations (uOp1 721.1 anduOp2 721.2) are sufficient to implement processing specified by InstrA,InstrB, and InstrC. uOp1 and uOp2 have no defined program order withrespect to each other, but uOp2 does follow uOp1 according to traceorder. Three micro-operations (uOp3 722.3, uOp4 722.4, and uOp5 722.5)implement processing specified by InstrD and InstrE. uOp3, uOp4, anduOp5 have no defined program order with respect to each other, but arein relative trace order (uOp3 is first and uOp5 is last). uOp3 followsuOp2 according to program order (since Atomic Trace 722 follows AtomicTrace 721 according to program order). Further uOp5 precedes uOp6 723.6in program order (since Atomic Trace 722 precedes Atomic Trace 723 inprogram order). Four micro-operations (uOp6 723.6, uOp7 723.7, uOp8723.8, and uOp9 723.9) implement processing specified by InstrX, InstrY,and InstrZ. uOps 6-9 have no defined program order with respect to eachother, but are in relative trace order (uOp6 is first and uOp9 is last).

In various embodiments in accordance with the foregoing first and secondtechniques, traces are atomic and have relative program order withrespect to each other, while lacking a defined program order betweenmicro-operations (or instructions) within the traces, as illustrated inFIG. 7. In various embodiments in accordance with the foregoing firstand second techniques, traces are atomic and have relative program orderwith respect to each other, and further have a defined program orderbetween micro-operations (or instructions) within the traces. In variousembodiments in accordance with the foregoing first and secondtechniques, traces that are not atomic are used in place of atomictraces. In some of the embodiments using non-atomic traces,micro-operations (or instructions) within the traces have no definedprogram order with respect to each other, while in some others of theembodiments using non-atomic traces, micro-operations (or instructions)within the traces have a defined program order with respect to eachother.

In some embodiments in accordance with the first and the secondtechniques, groups of micro-operations (or instructions) having nospecific correspondences to traces or atomic traces are used in place ofatomic traces. For example, flags are checkpointed and restored withrespect to the groups of micro-operations (instead of with respect toatomic traces). In some of the embodiments using groups ofmicro-operations (or instructions) having no specific correspondences totraces or atomic traces, micro-operations (or instructions) within thegroups have no defined program order with respect to each other, whilein some others of the embodiments using groups of micro-operations (orinstructions) having no specific correspondences to traces or atomictraces, micro-operations (or instructions) within the groups have adefined program order with respect to each other.

According to various embodiments any combination of traces, atomictraces, and groups of instructions or micro-operations are retained in acache, such as a trace cache. According to various embodiments anycombination of a trace, an atomic trace, and a group of instructions ormicro-operations correspond to all or any portion of a basic block ofinstructions. In some embodiments a basic block trace cache retainsentries of traces or atomic traces corresponding to all or any portionof a basic block of instructions. According to various embodiments anycombination of a trace, an atomic trace, and a group of instructions ormicro-operations correspond to all or any portion of more than one basicblock of instructions. In some embodiments a multi-block trace cacheretains entries of traces or atomic traces corresponding to all or anyportion of one or more basic blocks of instructions.

Speculative Execution Management

According to various embodiments, a variety of mechanisms are used invarious combinations to efficiently manage speculative execution.Retention of speculative state with reduced physical register file areais enabled by shadow registers. A special register renaming schemeenables zero-cycle register clear operations. Various mechanisms collectmisprediction and exception information during processing of atomictraces, and determine a response. If appropriate, an atomic trace isaborted, and the atomic trace is re-fetched and re-executed, optionallywith additional or different constraints or formation. If appropriate,an atomic trace is aborted, and a different or altered atomic trace isfetched and executed.

In some embodiments, speculative processing comprises retainingspeculative state until retirement (or commit) of speculated actions. Aregister file implements more physical registers than architectedregisters (such as general purpose or floating point registers) in partto retain portions of the speculative state relating to the architectedregisters. Out-of-order instruction processing is enabled in part byregister renaming, and mappings are maintained between the physical andthe architected registers. If the physical register file provides arelatively large number of read ports and/or write ports, thenrelatively more area is used than if relatively fewer read/writeresources are provided, since writing to/from the ports, in someembodiments, dominates area and speed.

In some embodiments, allocation and deallocation of shadow registersused by atomic traces provides efficient speculative state management ina processor supporting a plurality of outstanding traces. A registerfile comprises physical registers mapped to logical registers associatedwith the architected registers. Each of the physical registers has anassociated set of shadow registers (for example two shadow registers).The shadow registers store copies of physical register values that areused to roll back state when an atomic trace is aborted. The shadowregisters have relatively fewer ports than the physical registers.Physical register allocation is a function of whether an associatedshadow register is free. Shadow registers are deallocated when no longerrequired after an atomic trace is completed either normally or with anabort. In some embodiments physical registers are freed early, in partenabled by the shadow registers. A rename table records mappings betweenlogical, physical, and shadow registers. A mapping checkpoint tablerecords snapshots of the mappings (when a trace begins) that are usedduring abort processing. See U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No.60/730,810, filed Oct. 27, 2005, first named inventor John GregoryFavor, and entitled ALLOCATION AND DEALLOCATION OF SHADOW REGISTERS USEDBY ATOMIC TRACES; hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes, andU.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/863,125, Oct. 26, 2006, firstnamed inventor Christopher P. Nelson, and entitled METHOD FOR EARLYDEALLOCATION OF PHYSICAL REGISTERS WHEN SHADOW REGISTERS ARE USED;hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes, for more detaileddescriptions.

In some embodiments, a register clear operation specifying a logicaldestination register is processed by a register renaming scheme thatmaps the destination register to a particular physical register. Otheroperations specifying a logical destination register are processed by aread/write register renaming scheme that maps the respective logicaldestination registers to one of a plurality of read/write physicalregisters. A physical register file implements the particular andread/write physical registers. The particular physical register isunaffected by writes and always returns zero when read. Thus the clearoperation is performed in zero execution cycles. According to varioususage scenarios, software uses the clear operation explicitly orimplicitly via an instruction translation mechanism. Software optionallyinvokes the clear operation when transitioning to a mode having areduced number of logical registers to free a portion of the physicalregisters that would otherwise remain allocated to unavailable logicalregisters. See U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/732,438, filedNov. 1, 2005, first named inventor John Gregory Favor, and entitledZERO-CYCLE EXECUTION OF CLEAR OPERATION AND AUTOMATIC REGISTER FREE;hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes, for a more detaileddescription.

In some embodiments, various predictive mechanisms to assume instructionexecution control flow (such as branch direction prediction and lack ofexceptions), to assume instruction execution values (such as load valuesand flag values), or both are used to reduce instruction processinglatency. Embodiments using the predictive mechanisms are enabled torecognize when one or more of the assumptions are incorrect and to thencorrect pipeline flow accordingly.

In some embodiments, a pipelined processor implements speculativeexecution according to sequences of atomic traces. A highest priorityabort trigger is determined for traces generating one or more aborttriggers when executed. The highest priority abort trigger is determinedaccording to embodiment-dependent pipeline behaviors and capabilities.The highest priority abort trigger is also determined according topriority dependent on original program order associated withinstructions that are compatible with a specific instruction setarchitecture, and according to architectural exception prioritiesdefined by the specific instruction set architecture. A variety ofmechanisms are employed to accumulate a plurality of pending aborttriggers for a trace. The triggers are prioritized as recognized, andresponded to in a single abort event, or a plurality of abort events,according to usage scenario and embodiment. The response includesaltering assumptions, constraints, predictions, mode of processing, andany combination thereof associated with the original trace to execute anew trace intended to make forward progress. See U.S. ProvisionalApplication Ser. No. 60/731,962, filed Oct. 31, 2005, first namedinventor John Gregory Favor, and entitled DETERMINING THE HIGHESTPRIORITY ABORT TRIGGER IN AN ATOMIC TRACE; hereby incorporated byreference for all purposes, and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No.60/862,609, filed Oct. 24, 2006, first named inventor Christopher P.Nelson, and entitled EXCEPTION HANDLING FOR ATOMIC TRACES; herebyincorporated by reference for all purposes, for more detaileddescriptions.

Trace Cache

In some embodiments, various mechanisms are used to improve processingof actions (e.g. instructions, operations, or micro-operations). In someembodiments separate caches for instructions, basic blocks, and tracesare provided to improve delivery of actions (e.g. micro-operations) toexecution units for processing (e.g. execution). A unified sequencerselects actions to perform (e.g. micro-operations to execute) from amongthe caches, and also determines subsequent actions to perform. See U.S.Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/832,848, Jul. 23, 2006, first namedinventor Don Alpert, and entitled MICROPROCESSOR WITH CACHES FORINSTRUCTIONS, BASIC BLOCKS, AND TRACES; hereby incorporated by referencefor all purposes, and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/832,822,Jul. 23, 2006, first named inventor Don Alpert, and entitledMICROPROCESSOR WITH COHERENT CACHES FOR BASIC BLOCKS AND TRACES, herebyincorporated by reference for all purposes, for more detaileddescriptions.

CONCLUSION

Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detailfor purposes of clarity of description and understanding, the inventionis not limited to the details provided. There are many embodiments ofthe invention. The disclosed embodiments are exemplary and notrestrictive.

It will be understood that many variations in construction, arrangement,and use are possible consistent with the description and are within thescope of the claims of the issued patent. For example, interconnect andfunction-unit bit-widths, clock speeds, and the type of technology usedare variable according to various embodiments in each component block.Names given to interconnect and logic are merely descriptive, and shouldnot be construed as limiting the concepts described. The order andarrangement of flowchart and flow diagram process, action, and functionelements is variable according to various embodiments. Also, unlessspecifically stated to the contrary, value ranges specified, maximum andminimum values used, or other particular specifications, are merelythose of the described embodiments, are expected to track improvementsand changes in implementation technology, and should not be construed aslimitations.

Functionally equivalent techniques known in the art are employableinstead of those described to embody various components, sub-systems,functions, operations, routines, and sub-routines. It is also understoodthat many functional aspects of embodiments are realizable selectivelyin either hardware (i.e., generally dedicated circuitry) or computerreadable storage medium wherein software (i.e., via some manner ofprogrammed controller or processor) is stored, as a function ofembodiment dependent design constraints and technology trends of fasterprocessing (facilitating migration of functions previously in hardwareinto software stored in the computer readable storage medium) and higherintegration density (facilitating migration of functions previously insoftware, stored in the computer readable storage medium into hardware).Specific variations in various embodiments include, but are not limitedto: differences in partitioning; different form factors andconfigurations; use of different operating systems and other systemsoftware; use of different interface standards; number and type of flagcheckpoint entries; number, width, and organization of fields in flagcheckpoint tables; number of entries or stages in registers and buffers;and other variations to be expected when implementing the conceptsdescribed herein in accordance with the unique engineering and businessconstraints of a particular application.

The embodiments have been described with detail and environmentalcontext well beyond that required for a minimal implementation of manyaspects of the embodiments described. Those of ordinary skill in the artwill recognize that some embodiments omit disclosed components orelements without altering basic cooperation among the remainingelements. It is thus understood that much of the details described arenot required to implement various aspects of the embodiments described.To the extent that the remaining elements are distinguishable from theprior art, components and features that are omitted are not limiting onthe embodiments described herein.

All such variations in embodiments comprise insubstantial changes overthe teachings conveyed by the described embodiments. It is alsounderstood that the embodiments described herein have broadapplicability to other computing applications, and are not limited tothe particular application or industry of the described embodiments. Theinvention is thus to be construed as including all possiblemodifications and variations encompassed within the scope of the claimsof the issued patent.

1. A method comprising: managing groups of actions associated withinstructions as atomic elements that are either committed entirelyaccording to a program order or aborted entirely; managing acorrespondence between the groups of actions and corresponding savedcopies of speculative flags; selectively restoring, in response toaborting one of the groups of actions, the speculative flags as afunction of the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions; saving a respective one of the saved copies ofthe speculative flags corresponding to each group of actions; andupdating the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions in response to a flag result produced byperforming one or more of the groups of actions older, according to theprogram order than the aborted group of actions, wherein the managingthe groups of actions, the managing the correspondence, and theselectively restoring occur as part of processing the groups of actionsby a processor implemented within an integrated circuit and compatiblewith execution of the instructions.
 2. The method of claim 1, whereinthe actions comprise micro-operations produced from the instructions. 3.The method of claim 1, wherein the saving is before any modification ofthe speculative flags in association with performing any flag-producingones of the actions of the respective group of actions.
 4. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the selectively restoring unconditionally sets thespeculative flags based on the saved copy of the speculative flagscorresponding to the aborted group of actions.
 5. The method of claim 1,wherein the managing comprises allocating the saved copies to an invalidstate.
 6. A method comprising managing groups of actions associated withinstructions as atomic elements that are either committed entirelyaccording to a program order or aborted entirely; managing acorrespondence between the groups of actions and corresponding savedcopies of speculative flags, wherein the managing comprises allocatingthe saved copies to an invalid state; selectively restoring, in responseto aborting one of the groups of actions, the speculative flags as afunction of the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions; and if performing any of the actions of theaborted group of actions produces one or more changes to the speculativeflags, then saving values of the speculative flags before the changes asthe saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to the abortedgroup of actions, and setting the saved copy of the speculative flagscorresponding to the aborted group of actions to a valid state, whereinthe managing the groups of actions, the managing the correspondence, andthe selectively restoring occur as part of processing the groups ofactions by a processor implemented within an integrated circuit andcompatible with execution of the instructions.
 7. The method of claim 6,wherein the selectively restoring comprises restoring the speculativeflags based on searching for a first valid one of the saved copies ofthe speculative flags starting with the saved copy of the speculativeflags corresponding to the aborted group of actions and proceeding tothe saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to the group ofactions that is the next younger of the groups of actions than theaborted group of actions according to the program order.
 8. A processorcomprising: speculative execution control logic enabled to commit and toabort groups of actions associated with instructions as respectiveatomic elements in accordance with a program order between the groups ofactions; flag checkpoint managing logic enabled to managecorrespondences between the groups of actions and corresponding savedcopies of speculative flags; flag restoring logic enabled, in responseto an abort of one of the groups of actions, to selectively restore thespeculative flags as a function of the saved copy of the speculativeflags corresponding to the aborted group of actions; and flagcheckpointing logic enabled to save a respective one of the saved copiesof the speculative flags corresponding to each group of actions, whereinthe flag checkpointing logic is further enabled, in response to a flagresult produced by executing one or more of the groups of actions olderthan the aborted group of actions, to update the saved copy of thespeculative flags corresponding to the aborted group of actions.
 9. Theprocessor of claim 8, further comprising a micro-operation build logicunit enabled to produce the actions as micro-operations built from theinstructions.
 10. The processor of claim 8, wherein the flagcheckpointing logic is further enabled to perform the save before anymodification of the speculative flags associated with performing anyflag-producing ones of the actions of the respective group of actions.11. The processor of claim 8, wherein the flag restoring logic isfurther enabled to perform the selective restoring by unconditionallysetting the speculative flags based on the saved copy of the speculativeflags corresponding to the aborted group of actions.
 12. The processorof claim 8, flag checkpoint allocating logic enabled to allocate thesaved copies to an invalid state.
 13. A processor comprising speculativeexecution control logic enabled to commit and to abort groups of actionsassociated with instructions as respective atomic elements in accordancewith a program order between the groups of actions; flag checkpointmanaging logic enabled to manage correspondences between the groups ofactions and corresponding saved copies of speculative flags; and flagrestoring logic enabled, in response to an abort of one of the groups ofactions, to selectively restore the speculative flags as a function ofthe saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to the abortedgroup of actions; flag checkpoint allocating logic enabled to allocatethe saved copies to an invalid state; and flag checkpointing logicenabled, if performing any of the actions of the aborted group ofactions produces one or more changes to the speculative flags, to savevalues of the speculative flags before the changes as the saved copy ofthe speculative flags corresponding to the aborted group of actions, andto set the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions to a valid state.
 14. The processor of claim13, wherein the flag restoring logic is further enabled to direct theselective restoring to restore the speculative flags based on searchingfor a first valid one of the saved copies of the speculative flagsstarting with the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding tothe aborted group of actions and proceeding to the saved copy of thespeculative flags corresponding to the group of actions that is the nextyounger of the groups of actions than the aborted group of actionsaccording to the program order.
 15. A medium readable by a computersystem that contains descriptions that specify, when interpreted by thecomputer system, a circuit comprising: a speculative execution controlsub-circuit enabled to direct committing and aborting groups of actionsassociated with instructions as respective atomic elements in accordancewith a program order between the groups of actions; a flag checkpointmanaging sub-circuit enabled to manage correspondences between thegroups of actions and corresponding saved copies of speculative flags; aflag restoring sub-circuit enabled, in response to an abort of one ofthe groups of actions, to selectively restore the speculative flags as afunction of the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions; and a flag checkpointing sub-circuit enabledto save a respective one of the saved copies of the speculative flagscorresponding to each of the groups of actions before any modificationof the speculative flags associated with performing any flag-producingones of the actions of the respective group of actions, and furtherenabled, in response to a flag result produced by executing one or moreof the groups of actions older than the aborted group of actions, toupdate the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions.
 16. The medium of claim 15, wherein the flagrestoring sub-circuit is further enabled to perform the selectiverestoring by setting the speculative flags based on the saved copy ofthe speculative flags corresponding to the aborted group of actions. 17.The medium of claim 15, wherein the circuit further comprises a flagcheckpoint allocating sub-circuit enabled to allocate the saved copiesto an invalid state.
 18. A medium readable by a computer system thatcontains descriptions that specify, when interpreted by the computersystem, a circuit comprising: a speculative execution controlsub-circuit enabled to direct committing and aborting groups of actionsassociated with instructions as respective atomic elements in accordancewith a program order between the groups of actions; a flag checkpointmanaging sub-circuit enabled to manage correspondences between thegroups of actions and corresponding saved copies of speculative flags; aflag restoring sub-circuit enabled, in response to an abort of one ofthe groups of actions, to selectively restore the speculative flags as afunction of the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions; and a flag checkpoint saving sub-circuitenabled, if execution of any of the actions of the aborted group ofactions produces one or more changes to the speculative flags, to savevalues of the speculative flags before the changes as the saved copy ofthe speculative flags corresponding to the aborted group of actions, andto set the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding to theaborted group of actions to a valid state.
 19. The medium of claim 18,wherein the flag restoring sub-circuit is further enabled to perform theselective restoring by setting the speculative flags based on searchingfor a first valid one of the saved copies of the speculative flagsstarting with the saved copy of the speculative flags corresponding tothe aborted group of actions and proceeding to the saved copy of thespeculative flags corresponding to the group of actions that is the nextyounger of the groups of actions than the aborted group of actionsaccording to the program order.